What a scumbag. The replies from Nico are insane:
“Team effort”
“:praying-hands (x2)”
And so on… The audacity and complete shamelessness…
I wonder what narrative they tell themselves.
Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
81–90 of 323 posts
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has any group of workers ever "won" a long-term victory against a new technology? There are plenty of short-term concessions made in the face of powerful trade union opposition, but I can't think of any technology that was just stopped dead to appease workers with obsolete skills.
That assumes we're talking about technologies that are legal and in some way beneficial. AI is basically large-scale copyright infringement. If allowed to continue, human authors (I'm including programmers here) will eventually just stop publishing, because why feed the machine that's busy replacing you? You're not even getting paid for it, because the magic box can do the same thing you can for cheaper. Thing is, ev…
[deleted]
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#83What a scumbag. The replies from Nico are insane: “Team effort” “:praying-hands (x2)” And so on… The audacity and complete shamelessness… I wonder what narrative they tell themselves.
I wonder if Nico will be feeling so cocky when Papermark gets their general counsel involved. The public Twitter shaming was clearly an attempt to resolve this without litigation, but hey, if that's how Nico truly feels, guess he gets to see what's behind door #2 (a massive bill for a legal retainer).
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#84Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#85[deleted]
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright violation is not theft. Your effort to create something that can be effortlessly copied conveys to you no property. Society deems it beneficial to grant a time limited monopoly on copying it to spur innovation.
You wouldn’t steal a car!
Stealing a car - or anything tangible - means... the owner is very literally deprived of the benefits of owning said car/thing. Can't really say the same for a copied pattern of bits.
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#87Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#88[deleted]
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#89[flagged]
What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…
Human dignity when it comes to work and contribution is very simple:
Software developers should charge a fair price for their products from their users. That's dignified and beneficial for everybody involved. And it doesn't invite "code stealers" or anybody who wants to reap what they didn't sow.
Just like any type of work. Fair compensation is the key. Not working for free for people who don't care about you and then complain that they didn't give you anything.
Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark
#90[flagged]
What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…
"Spirit" means nothing when it comes to legal - or even community - compliance. Either something is allowed, or it isn't, and if a license doesn't do everything that a user of said license desires then they should change that license. Just as licenses were made that explicitly made sharing with corporations less amenable, so should licenses re Gen AI usage. Only then is it worth making a case.